I'm Back!!!

Greetings Earthlings. 

Sorry for not updating this blog for a long ass time. The new semester started few months ago and I have been intense for a long time.

No, actually, I had no enough time to write anything on my blog for months. The last time I updated my blog was last month when I tried to write a post about meeting with Missouri Senate candidate Jason Kander, who is also the Secretary of State of Missouri.

I think I could only post once a month rather than every week to adjust my school schedule and my habit of being lazy.

Then again, I won't update this frequently and I am still following money in politics news. Maybe someday, I could interview someone famous who happens to be a Facebook friend of mine.

I apologize about this delay and I will see you next time.

50 Years After the Voting Rights Act, Voting Restrictions Still Remains

Yes. I know. It is too late to post a blog about the 50th anniversary of the Voting Right Act. But I am gonna do it anyway.

Before I go into this, I will announce that I will be returning to U.S. next week. Just to prepare for the sophomore year this month there won't be second blog.

Anyway, it's been a half of century since LBJ passed the Voting Rights Act, which prevent discrimination in voting and bring equality to the ballot box for all Americans, regardless of the color of one's skin. However, in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the Section 4 of the law, the formula laying out which jurisdictions had to seek federal approval for election law changes, which makes the Section 5 of the law - giving minorities to vote - inoperable.

Brennan Center for Justice explains the further consequences of the repeal of this part of the law:

A 5-4 majority looked at improvements in black voter registration rates and the eradication of restrictions like the poll tax to find that the "conditions that originally justified [Section 5] no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions."

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg decried that the majority was holding the Act's own success against it. "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes," she responded, "is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

At its heart, the disagreement boils down to whether, as a nation, we still need federal protections against the possibility of racial discrimination in voting. Although we have come a long way since the 1960s, the past few years have shown that major racial divisions still exist. They may even have gotten worse since 2013, as large majorities of white and black Americans now view race relations as "generally bad," according to a recent poll.

The recent rash of discriminatory voting laws, unleashed by the Shelby County decision, does not help. States have used the court's implicit approval as justification to pass strict measures. These may not be as obviously discriminatory as literacy tests, but they similarly prevent people from voting.

For example, mere hours after the high court ruling, Texas implemented a strict photo ID law, which had previously been rejected under Section 5. That summer, the North Carolina legislature passed a sweeping law that also instituted a stringent photo ID requirement, eliminated same-day registration, and cut back on early voting.

All of these laws respond to phantom complaints of voter fraud, and all disproportionately hurt the ability of minorities to vote. In October 2014, a federal judge found 600,000 registered Texas voters do not have acceptable ID. Testimony showed African-American and Hispanic registered voters are two to four times more likely than white registered voters to lack photo ID. In North Carolina, data showed African Americans used early voting and same-day registration at much higher rates than whites.

This seems like one of those "racism is over" rationale. Part of this excuse to get rid of racial equality of this country.

Ari Berman, a journalist who have been covering voting rights throughout his career, the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby county decision made the Voting Rights Act more vulnerable. In his op-ed for New York Times, the voter IDs laws after the decision made the voting more restrictive and thousands of voters turned away from it. A 2014 study by the Government Accountability Office found that voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee reduced turnout by 2 to 3 percent during the 2012 election, enough to swing a close vote, with the highest drop-off among young, black and newly registered voters.

That's one of the reasons why there was a low turnout during the 2014 mid-term - voting restriction laws prevented minority voters and younger voters, these same progressive-minded people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 election. The Republican Party - the party that supports the voter ID laws - wants to make the electorate older, whiter and more conservative as opposed to how the electorate was in 2008.

On the bright side, there has been some efforts to bring back the voting rights to all the people. Couple of months ago, Oregon passed the law that to automatically sign up eligible citizens in the motor vehicle database. Also, several states have advanced bipartisan reforms to modernize voter registration in recent years, and have expanded early voting opportunities and moved registration online.

Right now, the Congress has introduced two separate bills — the Voting Rights Amendment Act and the Voting Rights Advancement Act — that would restore the lost protections of Section 5, making it operative once again, and modernize the Voting Rights Act for the 21st century. On this historic anniversary for our country, Congress should move swiftly to restore the lost promise of the Voting Rights Act. 

The Voting Rights Act exist not for the racial equality, but for advancing the core of democracy. 

This needs to be a major concern for everyone - no matter how they viewed the 2013 decision. This could be a major concern for 2016 election, especially for Ari Breman:

I think in many ways we've come to take the VRA and what it did for granted, but the fact that states can pass new voting restrictions, those states with the worst histories of voting discrimination, no longer have to clear their election changes with the federal government means that: No. 1, those states can pass new restrictions very close to the election that are very hard to challenge, and ... No. 2, that other states are going to feel emboldened to try to pass these efforts.

Indiegogo Campaign for 'Under The Influence', A Documentary About Money In Politics and The People's Grassroot Response

It was a morning in Seoul, South Korea. I looked at my iPhone and the notification says that the hashtag '#EndCorruption' is trending on Twitter. It led me a series of tweets which links to the Indiegogo campaign page for fundraising the documentary Under The Influence.

The conception of documentary begins with a filmmaker named Terry Bennett and his son, Sy, who had a cancer and 9 months to live, following Doris “Granny D” Haddock, an old woman who protested against corporate money in politics by walking from California to Washington D.C.. Granny D made herself a big news by walking 10 miles a day for 14 months back in 1999, during the time John McCain and then-Senator Russ Feingold was planning to propose a campaign finance regulation. She became interested in campaign finance reform and raised an awareness by becoming a real-life Forrest Gump. She have had enough with corporate influence in political process so much. and said "We’re losing our democracy, and nothing’s being done about it.”

Granny D even ran for a Senate seat in 2004, at the age of 94. She lost but still remain active in politics until her death in 2010, and pass the torch to all of us.

After his son's death, Terry Bennett met Sam Oliver and the two realized they had a mutual passion for the subject and took to the road, following the same footsteps Granny D took. They interviewed many people and activists, including Cenk Uygur of Wolf-PAC and Ben Cohen of Stamp Stampede. They finished with interviews, but they had little money to edit footage together. The filmmakers asked the people of Indiegogo page to fund-raise a money for the editing in order to complete it.

There has been many documentaries recently about corporate influence in politics like Citizen Koch and Pay 2 Play. These movies might prove that 2010s will be the decade when the people fight back at the rigorous establishment formed by corny capitalism. Starting at the wealthiest country in world, the United States of America. 

Even Former Republican Leader Bob Dole Thinks We Need To 'Stop All This Money In Politics'

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/04/how-money-runs-our-politics/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/bob-dole-says-the-republican-party-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-was-even-20-years-ago-hes-right/

http://talkingaboutmoneyin2016.tumblr.com/candidates

You know things are not right when a former majority leader and Republican Senator from Kansas thinks we should stop this money in politics. He said he is troubled by the amount of money that is being spent on political campaign. Dole, the GOP's presidential nominee in 1996, said in a recent interview for AARP Bulletin that campaign spending gone out of hand.

(this is from the interview)

What has been the biggest change in presidential politics since you were the Republican nominee in 1996? 

Money. Now they talk about raising $1 billion to run for president. It's unreal. We need to do something to stop all this money in politics. I've always believed when people give big money, they — maybe silently — expect something in return. 

Do you think you could have been the nominee if money had played such an important role back then? 

I don't think so. And I might not be conservative enough to be the nominee today.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, he is right about the current state of the presidential campaign. Not only that, he also concerns about the recent polarization within the congress and how his Republican Party is no longer the party that he used to know as we can see this editorial written by The New York Times staffs:

“It seems to be almost unreal that we can’t get together on a budget or legislation,” said Mr. Dole, the former Senate majority leader and presidential candidate. “I mean, we weren’t perfect by a long shot, but at least we got our work done.”

The current Congress can’t even do that, thanks to a furiously oppositional Republican Party, and that’s what has left mainstream conservatives like Mr. Dole and Senator John McCain shaking their heads in disgust.

Senators Marco Rubio and John McCain last month, two Republicans at odds over how to deal with the federal debt.Approach to Debt Widens Rift Among G.O.P. SenatorsMAY 24, 2013

The difference between the current crop of Tea Party lawmakers and Mr. Dole’s generation is not simply one of ideology. While the Tea Partiers are undoubtedly more extreme, Mr. Dole spent years pushing big tax cuts, railing at regulations and blocking international treaties. His party actively courted the religious right in the 1980s and relied on racial innuendo to win elections. But when the time came to actually govern, Republicans used to set aside their grandstanding, recognize that a two-party system requires compromise and make deals to keep the government working on the people’s behalf.

The current generation refuses to do that. Its members want to dismantle government, using whatever crowbar happens to be handy, and they don’t particularly care what traditions of mutual respect get smashed at the same time. “I’m not all that interested in the way things have always been done around here,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida told The Times last week.

Tom Mann of the Brooking Institute and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute released a book in the spring of 2012 called: "“It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism". In an essay taken from the book, the duo wrote:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise;unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal

(You could read more further on how polarization got so heavy in Washington in this article here)

All of them have this connections between big donors' demands in Washington and their endorsed candidates from both parties. Republican Presidential candidate Lindsay Graham sponsored a bill that will ban internet gambling in the Senate when his big supporter and donor, Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner, asked him to do so in order to get rid of competitors. Big donors like Alice Walton of Walmart and big Israel supporter Haim Saban from Democratic side, in other hand, already got Hillary Clinton in their pocket and push her to have policies that could benefit them not only financially, but also their personal interest like agreeing with her political opponents' Israeli policies.

This is one big disconnect between their voters and candidates. They spent most of the time through raising campaign money form their big donors and only meet their voters through the candidate's donor-sponsored small speeches, rather than talk with them face to face. That's what Bernie Sanders did with his supporters: gathering up ten thousand people in Madison, Wisconsin last week - maybe the biggest in 2016 election.

Big money in politics is one of biggest issues we must talk about during 2016 elections. Candidates from both parties have discussed about reforming the government and some of them, including Republicans, willingly support campaign finance reform.

This is not a partisan issue - but BIPARTISAN issue. We must act now. We must return to the time Bob Dole used to familiar with. 

Wealthy Individuals and Corporations Having Too Much Influence is the #1 Concern Among Registered Voters, According to Recent Polls

In this article that's surfacing around the net about the recent polls among voters show that there are too much influence from wealthy individuals within the elections and, of course, money in politics. 

American voters say their top concerns about the upcoming presidential election are wealthy individuals and corporations who might have too much influence who over wins, as well as campaigns that spend more time on negative attacks than proposing solutions, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Also, most of these issues the voters concern about were election issues. Most people concerns about what's behind the curtain rather than the candidates.

Thirty-three percent of voters say the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations is their top concern, while 25 percent say they're more worried about negative attacks.

Another 16 percent are more concerned that nothing will change no matter who wins, and 12 percent believe that too many wealthy candidates don't understand the economic problems of average Americans.

But only 4 percent of voters say their top concern are dynastic candidates — like Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul — who are from families who have run for the presidency before.

I have seen more people grew interests in joining the campaign finance reform and its causes. Whether its Wolf-PAC or Ben Cohen's Stamp Stampede movement, people demands more voices in the government rather than the megaphone-level of voices from corporations. 

I'm back!

Hello everyone. You all been wondering where have I been for few weeks?

As I told you before, I moved out to my new apartment with a help from my family and now we are in Seoul, South Korea staying at my dad's home.

Without any Campaign Finance Reform activity in this country, I feel bored. I can't stamp on Korean currency, so I begin to feel frustrated. 

I'll come back to United States this August. I could do more activities later. 

Can Bernie Sanders Make It?

Yesterday, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, kicked off his Presidential campaign against former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who announced her candidacy since April 12th.

Speaking from Burlington, Vermont, where Sanders served as mayor from 1981 to 1989, he declared a revolution for the middle class family and laid out his progressive agenda. "Today we stand here and say loudly and clearly: Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires."

You could go to his campaign website right now and see what happened in Burlington.

Actually before photos and videos from his campaign launch released in online, the website gotten 404 error and Sanders posted up this video of himself explaining the error message.

It is interesting to see more people begin to prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, who is too conservative for mainstream liberals and progressives' taste and tries way too hard to pander left-wing bases.

In fact, she has a lot of campaign money from big businesses and corporate banks like Goldman Sachs. Believe it or not, her family's charitable Clinton foundation faces so much scrutiny for accepting donation from foreign countries and oil companies.

Bernie Sanders made his public image as some sort of an antithesis of President Barrack Obama's 2012 Republican opponent Mitt Romney. Or just an opposite of President Obama himself. People, especially liberals and supporters of Occupy Wall Street movement, wanted Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to ran for the President of the United States. However she declined the challenge, so her supporters decided to endorse Sanders as an alternative to Warren.

The problem is: can Sanders make it?

First, I like his campaign model. He accepts public donation rather than Super PAC money as many candidates usually accepts. His Presidential goal is to overturn Citizens United and restore democracy back to the people. Second, throughout his political career, he is honest. Even one of conservative politicians in Washington will admits that Sanders is one of the most honest politicians in the house. And finally, he openly declared war on billionaires and oligarchs and constantly spread his populist message. He will expand medicare and improve healthcare system, give larger tax  to the rich, and make college tuition free.

However, here are possible problems along the way as a long shot candidate.

Billionaire donors like the Koch brothers would public smear him through negative ads produced by their own Super PACs and bring down his campaign. Good thing is, this won't deters Sanders, and he said he will not do attack ads and decided to play fair. Also, he is open about his socialist view and considering how United States of America had a negative attitude toward Marxian idealism and left-wing views in the past (look up McCarthyism), people won't easily accept his message. But that doesn't worries Sanders. He even replied to George Stephanopoulos's concerns about upcoming Republican attack ads that Sanders will turn America to Scandinavia, by saying, "What is wrong with Scandinavian countries?" (By the way, socialism is now popular among millennials.)

Most importantly: the cost. Any candidates with public-financed campaign and supported by the Occupy Wall Street movement will never make it due to the cost of being in televised debate. According to former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer, who tried to ran as Republican in the last Presidential election, the broadcasting network won't invite him to the televised debates between other Republican candidates because he didn't have enough money. When Roemer ran for Louisiana governor, he had seven televised debates. He liked being in debate because he liked the "fire and the passion." That was when he had a million and half dollars and won the election while others have more money than him. The problem for him now, if he wants himself to be in people's living room television, he have to raise more money and be on the debate. He had both Washington and state political experience, but he never invited to national debate.

If Bernie Sanders could make himself to the televised debate, then he better pile up all money he could. Fortunately his campaign able to raise more than 1.5 million dollar in less than 24 hours, more than any other current Republican candidates in the first 24 hours after their announcement. 4 days later, his campaign raised 3 million - a building anticipation.

Ben & Jerry Ice Cream founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield jumped into his support as well along with actors Mark Ruffalo from The Avengers and Patton Oswalt. While other people in Washington and in Hollywood publicly endorse Hillary Clinton, Sanders managed to bring ragtag group of idealists on his side.

For me, I would personally endorse him. In fact, he is one of my favorite politicians in Washington. If I live in the most chaotic moment in the history of mankind and lists out three people I could forever trust with, one of them would be Bernie Sanders (the others are Paul Krugman and Glenn Greenwald).

Even before his campaign launch, I flirted with democratic socialism and admired Nordic model of democracy. Scandinavian countries like Norway or Sweden tends to have less political corruption and all political campaigns are public financed. Also, they don't have income inequality and anyone can live like their ideal capitalist while the state provide appropriate amount of welfare at the same time. If their way democracy proven to be efficient, why can't United States of America learned anything from them?

How many times do we have to listen political ads from candidates how pro-family they are or how much moral they have. I am tired of this "one guy with big megaphone on a soap box" way of election. It is time for people to get up and vote for candidate who can represent their voters, not billionaire donors.  

(UPDATE) Where have I been lately???

Update: forgot to post up the video.

Hey there folks.

If you are a loyal reader of my blog, you've been wondering why I haven't updated blog for a long time.

I got busy with final exams for couple of weeks, and I got no times to make any blog post on recent money in politics news.

If you are following me on twitter, you see I tends to post up The Young Turks videos of money in politics news (and other random stuffs). 

Recently I am part of this Stamp Stampede Millionaire Club and I am top of the chart right now (I was #1 for a while, now I am like #2 or so). I even made a music video of myself stamping every twenty dollar from my bank account and they just approved it and shared it to their website. If you Stamp Stampede stampers out there, if you want to beat me, then come join the fight.

At the same time, I was also named as Super Stamper of the Month, which is awesome. James Earle, the Outreach Coordinator, contacted me and we had a phone conversation about how I got introduced into campaign finance reform movement and how do I feel about winning Super Stamper of the Month. It's interesting how much I am close with the community.

Next month, my family and I are going to South Korea over the summer. I will still blogging there and report money in politic stories. Even better, I could update this blog more frequently than before, rather than bi-weekly as usual. So look forward to more stuffs later in the future.

(Stamp Stampede-related) Banks Would Likely to Silence Your "Speech" If They Don't Like The Message

Here's an anecdote I would like to share it with you.  

There is a small bank called US Bank at the Student Center in University of Missouri - Columbia. I came here to get more five dollar bills to stamp on by exchanging with a twenty dollar. When I handed my stamped twenty dollar to a bank lady, she told me I shouldn't stamp on it anymore because I am defacing it. 

Now keep in mind that this lady worked at the bank for more than 20 years and she have seen stamped bills like 'where's George' many times before. When I gave a stamped bill to her for the first time, she said it reminded her 'where's George' dollars she got from the past. 

After she said I am defacing it, I replied to her it is legal to stamp on money and also a "free speech." However, she also said that the bank can "silence" my "free speech" if they don't like it.

This reminds me of this story about how Senator Elizabeth Warren met JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. It was featured in the afterwords from Warren's autobiography A Fighting Chance. When Dimon demanded more risky bank deregulation in front of her, Warren was furious and call him off for a possibly illegal act. Dimon laughed off and said, "So hit me with a fine. We can afford it." Which means Jamie Dimon already bought many legislators in the House of Congress and literally he runs the government. You can check out The Young Turks's report below:

Now, US Bank is nowhere near big or corrupted as JP Morgan Chase, but it seems like within a banking industry, bankers doesn't like when people speak out against money in politics and demand for prosecuting bankers who were part of the 2008 economic recessions. As you can see an image from the top, this guy mentioned how his bank shreds Stamp Stampede dollars whenever they ends up in ATM. 

This is outrageous. The banking industry knew we are coming after them. They are afraid we are turning money into weapons against them, even though Citizens United ruling (or Buckley v. Valeo) technically allowed us to speak out against money in politics through "free speech."

I am not going to make any speculation whether the banking industry would pressure the Congress to propose some restrictions on stamping dollars, but I feel like they would most likely to do so in order to "silence" our "speech."

The campaign's founder Ben Cohen's lawyer already prepared a legal opinion regarding the issue of stamping dollars and you can read and download the it right here. And when the bank tells you something about "defacing" dollars, just show them this legal opinion and tell them how it is not illegal. But just to be clear: it is ILLEGAL to destroy paper currency or deface it so much that it’s no longer recognizable. What we are doing is a legal and we want our dollars to be circulated as much as possible! 

I have seen many people on Instagram founded Stamp Stampede bills all over the country. Even within Columbia, Missouri! So don't give up. The point of this campaign is to spread the message much as possible.

As Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the message."

Whatever Happened to Sen. Bob Menendez?

Looks like someone got indicted for bribery related to Super PACs. This is such a rare thing ever happened in politics. In a country where political bribery is legal, Senator from New Jersey named Bob Menendez indicted last Wednesday afternoon for 14 criminal counts of bribery, conspiracy, and making false statement. 

He has a friendly but sketchy connection with this millionaire eye doctor named Salomon Mengel, who became rich through Medicare. 

This is what The Daily Beast described the behind the scene curtain:

Three years ago, prosecutors began looking at the New Jersey Democrat’sfriendship with Salomon Melgen, an ophthalmologist who became filthy rich, much to the ire of the government, because of Medicare. Melgen was suspiciously generous to Menendez: providing him with luxury hotel suites in Paris, stays at his vacation home (called Casa de Campo, of course), and hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. In return, Menendez seemingly acted as Melgen’s personal advocate in the federal government.

Menendez claims this is typical friendly behavior. Prosecutors, he snapped on Wednesday, just “don’t know the difference between friendship and corruption.”

And sure, who among us hasn’t—as the indictment specifies—personally called an ambassador to get visas approved for three of our friend’s girlfriends, or intervened when that friend was accused of Medicare fraud, or tried to prevent a foreign government from screwing up a contract with that friend’s business—all while that friend financed our reelection campaign? It’s just what friends do.

Menendez’s defense hinges in part on the sheer length of his friendship with Melgen: 20 years. Of course, 20 years ago, Menendez was a congressman rising rapidly through the ranks in the Democratic Party. No matter, Menendez says, because the cigar-loving duo are so close that they know each other’s families.

Some may say this is the tipping point of political corruption from Super PAC. The author of the article went on and making connections with Citizen United case.

I've written about why such an outcome for Menendez might feel inevitable: New Jersey is, The Washington Post’s Philip Bump calculated, the No. 1 state in the country when it comes to politicians who also are criminals. But it also was arguably inevitable that it wasn't just New Jersey that provided the culture of corruption, but the Citizens United decision.  

Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, said the most interesting part of the indictment has to do with Melgen's $600,000 donation to Menendez, funneled through a super PAC run by former and current aides to Harry Reid, the intention of which was to maintain the Senate majority for Democrats.

“It shows how misguided the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, was when it declared that independent spending can’t or doesn't pose any threat of corruption,” he said. “In fact, we see now, a very direct instance of corruption flowing from contributions made to an independent expenditure group.”

“I think this was all very predictable,” Ryan went on. “The court was completely out of touch with how politics works and this Menendez indictment reflects precisely how politics does work and influence-seekers are going to be exerting their corrupting influence through super PACs just as they used to do it through political parties and soft money. Super PACs provide the same exact types of threats and avenues for corruption.

“The court was wrong and now we have, at least, the first bit of alleged evidence about how wrong the court was in Citizens United.”

Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, agreed. On the Acela from Washington to New York City on Thursday afternoon, Potter told me that “the reality” is “that of course, candidates and officeholders are in the middle of the super PAC world.” He said it was a predictable outcome, although “the court claimed it wasn't going to happen.”

The whole idea of Citizens United was that huge sums of money injected into politics wouldn't cause corruption because the politicians themselves wouldn't be involved in the super PACs—but what about Menendez and Melgen, so close that the latter selected hotel suites for the former?

“It’s possible that [Melgen] did that without anyone talking to the Menendez world,” Potter said, an eyebrow raised skeptically.

Funny how the author mentioned how politicians in New Jersey are also criminals. Look at Governor Chris Christie and the BridgeGate debacle. 

The New York Times went on details of how this corruption came about. You can read the article here. 

This is the big deal because it is contrary to what Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said about the Citizen United decision, that independent expenditures “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Even though this is the rarest moment that many had warn to the Supreme Court, why it is so overlooked and why the evidence never matters to them?

“The court’s position is pretty simple, and it is not that independent expenditures can never create gratitude in an officeholder,” said Bradley A. Smith, a professor of law at Capital University Law School. “Rather it is that as a constitutional matter, they do not pose a threat of corruption sufficient to justify the invasions of First Amendment rights that the ‘reformers’ crave.”

Even worse, they would probably overlooked at it more. By the time I am writing this blog, Menendez pleads not guilty to bribery accusation (well, according to the headline).

I'm gonna leave you some links to more articles on this case. 

The Robert Menendez Corruption Charges Undermine the Supreme Court

Menendez indictment marks first big corruption case involving a super PAC

And please, if you want to fix the system and get corruption out of politics, then join us at Wolf-PAC.
Sign the petition and join as the member.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/sign_petition?recruiter_id=63374

INTERVIEW FAILED. And More About Washington.....

Hello folks. Sorry for not updating blog for long time. I tried to contact Byron DeLear but he haven't picked up the phone. At the same time, I had two midterm exams this month. However, I paid attention to the recent Israel election, the #47traitors incident with Senator Tom Cotton, and, yes, Pope Francis's comment on money in politics. There is also a recent news about Congressman Aaron Schock resigning over misuse of campaign funding but this is the only dark money-related news the corporate media would comment on. There are few things I would like to make comments about them and why I think these people who support such politicians are disgusting.

Let's start with Israel.

• While I am writing this, I will stay neutral on the issue of Israeli-Palestine conflict. I believe Israel, as a state, have a right to defend themselves, but at the same time, I think they should leave Palestine alone and shouldn't occupy more further onto their land. Also, both sides should better make a diplomatic peace deal together and enact two-state solution already. 
• Unfortunately, two-state solution is only a wishful thinking in the world of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing supporters from United States and his own country Israel. Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak at the House of Congress without any approval from the Obama administration. At first, I thought this was a joke: why would a powerful man in US politic committed a treasonous act by inviting a foreign leader without any permission? 
• Netanyahu did came to the House of Congress gave a hawkish speech in front of Republicans, while others, including Democrats who supports Israel and even Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, boycotted the speech. Even worse, this happened at that time the Obama administration trying to make a deal with Iran about nuclear program that Netanyahu is afraid of. The Prime Minister of Israel warned everyone in Congress about the threat of Iranian nuclear program, the same way he warned everyone at United Nation about it few years ago. The problem with his speech was that, according to the leaked top-secret Mossad documents, Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons”. He cried the wolf couple of times over the last decade and did not listen to advises from his Mossad chief whether or not Israel should attack other countries in Middle East that look threatening for them.
• Many pundits and commentators believe that the speech Netanyahu gave at the Congress would negatively affects his re-election campaign in Israel. As long as Israeli-supporting right wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson is on his side, this won't matters. Adelson subsidize largest printed media in Israel to push the agenda supported by Netanyahu's followers. So he used corporate funding, fear-tactic, and voters suppression on Arab citizens of Israel (and Palestinians) to gain more votes and re-elected for the fourth time. In other words, Israeli election is just as much as rigged as United States. People said Israel is the only democratic nation in Middle East? Well they should add two more words, "kind of".
• And funny thing is, Netanyahu stated that there will be no two-state solution before he got elected. After that, he backpedaled and said he SUPPORTS two-state solution.  The truth is he and every Republicans in congress who applauded his speech still wants to bomb every Middle Eastern.

Speaking of the war, we then have Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

• While the Obama administration trying to make a peace negotiation with Iran, 47 Republican senators signed the letter to Iranian leaders written by newly elected Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas that tells them not to trust President Barack Obama.
• As you can see from Netanyahu speech about the nonexistence threat of Iranian nuclear program, obviously Republicans want to declare war on Iran and they would do it the same disastrous way they did with Iraq. 
• Not surprisingly, Tom Cotton, who is leading on this, received campaign donation from private defense contractors (who usually keep hawkish lawmakers in power) and let them profit more from the pointless and unnecessary war.
• When I learned about this, it made me hit the roof. So these are the same people who claimed they care about life and yet they want to send their voters' children to war and let defense contractors to make money off of it. People who voted for them just disgusts me. This what happen if you let the rich people control the election results and made majority of the people too apathetic to vote. 

Upside to this money in politics mess? Well we got an unusual ally for "get money out" movement and it is the Pope of Roman Catholic Church.

• Pope Francis has called for greater transparency in politics and said elections should be free from backers who fund campaigns in order to prevent policy being influenced by wealthy sponsors.
• The Pope also suggested that he would support a public financing system, noting that such a method of funding elections “would allow for me, the citizen, to know that I’m financing each candidate with a given amount of money.” The same five conservative (Catholic) justices who decided Citizens United, however, have also made public financing virtually impossible to implement successfully in the United States.
• Why's that matters is that he shares the same value Wolf-PAC believes in and ever since he got elected, he have preached against human greed and for the voice of the voiceless.

That's all for the overall summary of money in politic stories throughout first half of March. Even though I wanted to talk about Aaron Schock but I already pointed out this is the only thing the mainstream media would report on so I prefer not weighting on this.

For this spring break, I am going to do some trainings with new Wolf-PAC volunteers. I better get prepared. If you haven't sign up for Wolf-PAC: do it right away. 

Wish me luck.

BREAKING: New Jersey Becomes the 4th State to Call for Article V Convention (and guess who's on honorable mentions list?)

Yesterday, New Jersey became the 4th state to call for Article V convention for the new amendment to the US constitution. Cenk Uygur announced this today and congratulated New Jersey team for the effort.

Even though I am in Missouri, but guess who's on the honorable mentions list?

Move to 5:11 and see for yourself. 

UPDATE: Interview Coming Up! And How I Failed to Cover MO Politics

Hey folks!

I have been busy lately with school stuffs and that's why I haven't look into the Missouri politic, yet.

Sure you may heard about Right-to-Work bill which was created by American Legislative Exchange Council within the state house. It is a de-unionization bill that only benefits employers but not employees, and The House of Congress of Missouri just passed the bill about a week ago. Supporters argue that it could improve Missouri business, even though Missouri is already one of pro-business states in America. 

So there's little snippet of what Rex Sinquefeld aiming for the state of Missouri.

Anyway, let me tell you a little update for this blog:

Few months ago I contacted former Missouri state legislature and Article V activist Byron DeLear and asked for an interview. I met him though Wolf-PAC Missouri Google Group where he shared the article he wrote for St. Louis Post-Dispatch about his time at Assembly State of Legislatures. I send him some questions on his background, his political views and his advocacy for Article V of Constitution.

I haven't got a response from Byron DeLear until few weeks ago. He said we could get on the phone and discuss. He also shared a link to his blog post about how U.S. House finally count Article V application for the first time in centuries, thanks to this man named Dan Marks. The Young Turks covered how Dan Marks, who is also an Article V advocate, requested the congress to count the states' call for amendment convention and how Wolf-PAC got involved with this, and you can see it right below here:

Stay tune for the interview of Byron DeLear later next month or week. 

How to Stamp Money Out of Politics

Over the week, I was bored that I made several Instagram videos of myself stamping dollars.

How to stamp on a five dollar bill. "NOT TO BE USED FOR BRIBING POLITICIANS" #StampStampede #GetMoneyOut #OverturnCitizensUnited #WolfPAC

A video posted by Jay Whang (@jay_whang) on Feb 4, 2015 at 9:27am PST

If the editing style reminds you of these HowToBasic videos from YouTube, here's the thing - I am not a fan of HowToBasic videos. I feel like the maker of these videos wasted too much eggs and foods that could have gone to hungry homeless children on the street and starving children from Africa. However, I will admit that this style of editing was inspired from these videos and considering how Instagram only allow upload 15 seconds video, much like Vine, I could post up quick video of how to use the stamp.

Stamping money out of politic. #GetMoneyOut #StampStampede #stampmoneyout #OverturnCitizensUnited #WolfdashPac #WolfPAC #tyt

A video posted by Jay Whang (@jay_whang) on Feb 5, 2015 at 11:04am PST

How to #stampmoneyout of the politic. #politic #StampStampede #GetMoneyOut #OverturnCitizensUnited

A video posted by Jay Whang (@jay_whang) on Feb 6, 2015 at 3:14pm PST

 Hope you guys enjoy this video.

Got Another Stamp and How Often Will I Post?

About two weeks ago, the package of my second Stamp Stampede stamp came to my mail box.

Along with that, a coupon for free Ben & Jerry ice cream and a textbook I need for next week.

Let's get dough out of ice cream!

And the editor of Columbia Daily Tribune mailed me back about the Citizens United editorial and suggested me to revise it shorter. (They published it eventually, and I got some comments written by right-wing trolls who just want things business as usual. Cowards).

Then there was one time I try to encourage Catholic priest to join the causes (coincidentally, this year is not only the fifth anniversary of Citizens United case, but also the forty-second anniversary of Roe v. Wade), but I'm worried if that would cross the separation of church and state line, so instead I try to make a compelling case of why Catholics need to concern on this issue just as much as abortion.

Another big story related to Citizens United case was last week, The Undercurrent (one of The Young Turks' partner channel) released the video of protesters stood up to the Supreme Court justices and got arrested for disrupting inside the the Supreme Court. (you can see the video down here)

And..... that's all I could say. Some of you may wondering why I haven't post anything for a week. First of all: college stuffs. Second of all: I am a lazy son of a bitch. Because of these, I will update this blog bi-weekly rather than once in every week as you might have expected.

In fact, this bi-weekly schedule could give me some times to research Missouri politic. More later, I could write more posts about how dysfunctional Missouri politic is. 

See you soon.

State of The Union 2015 - Establishment Strikes Back

Update: You know I could have make more comments - like where the fuck is Justice Scalia, Thomas, Alito etc. And also this I Spy game I invented before President Obama comes in. 

(at first)

On January 20th Tuesday, President Barack Obama gave a State of the Union address at the House of Congress. He listed out his past achievements during presidency (like partially-ending War on Afghanistan), and talked about expanding middle class economics, making community college free, building more infrastructures, bringing more innovations, etc. He even quoted Pope Francis on the Cuban diplomacy. 

On the podium, this was the 2008 Obama we have admired long time ago. The same Obama we have all promised to - the one many conservatives scorned while many liberals cheered.

On top of that, he asked the congress to play "a better politic" without demonizing each other. He asked them to stop focusing on constant fundraising and false hysteria. No more partisanship - he asked all to spend more time lifting young people up and make worthy debate in the house. 

Unlike the State of the Union address from few years ago, he did not mentioned Citizens United. He may have mentioned "constant fundraising", but he did not mentioned what actually made the politic in Washington a 24/7 fist-fight (in War Room style) starring rejected Looney Tune characters. 

The President embraced future and hopes people can united each other in another year. He ended a speech with a fierce comeback line "I have no more campaigns to run. I know, 'cause I won both of them". 

President Obama hoped us that we could work together. Sure, we could work together. Even in this movement where we try to get dark money out of Washington - something that the President wanted to do but neglected often.

How right-wingers (and some progressives) really view him now.

Are there more? At least we have a Republican Senator from Iowa rebutted the President's address in Stepfordian language. 

Joni Ernst, ladies and gentlemen - a pin-up poster girl for 1950s conservatives. (Judging by her military background, she could be one of those machines sent from the future to kill John Connor!)

Just How Much I Support Campaign Finance Reform?

Virginia Choi, one of the bloggers for stampstampede.org, sent me an email and asked me some questions of how did I get involved in the movement to reduce big money in politics.

I gave her this lengthy response (I slightly edited it for this post):

You want to know how did I get interested in the movement? Very long story. It's all starts with my love-hate relation with The Young Turks to the last year's McCutcheon vs FEC case.

I think like a year ago, back in my high school junior/senior year, I used to subscribe and watch The Young Turks youtube channel. But the tone of their progressive messaging was so negative and cynical in a cringe-worthy way I decided to unsubscribe it. 

Back then, I was a part of school newspaper group, so politic and journalism was dominant discussion topic at that time. At the journalism room, while we were working on the latest issue of the paper, I came across this kid who watches The Young Turks regularly, and I told him how I don't like The Young Turks anymore. 

One day, we walked together in the middle of the night and discussed about politic. He mentioned how the billionaires funds political candidate's campaign and how someone like Mitt Romney won the Republican primary against someone more reasonable and honest like Ron Paul. He also said that's the part of reasons why Wolf-PAC, a campaign finance reform group founded by The Young Turks creator Cenk Uygur, exist and how he's part of the movement to get money out of politic.

So after we had this conversation, I learned there's a legalized bribery within our political system. I played around with the idea of trying to make awareness to this issue. I remember last spring, during the afternoon meeting, where I talk with my editor about which story, event, or topic I am going to cover for the month. I told her that I am going to write an editorial about money in politic and trying to encourage readers to join Wolf-PAC  and their causes. 

Right after I finished talking with her, the kid who told me about this issue came to me and said, "So you want to write about Wolf-PAC?", and showed me the article that the Supreme Court struck down another campaign finance restriction and declare that there will be no restriction whatsoever. This ruling happens to be, McCutcheon v. FEC. While I was working on this editorial [you can read it by clicking the link], I thought, "Oh my God. Democracy in America is dead."

From there on, I read many news articles, commentaries, and books about dark money in politic. And, for entire year, I slowly connecting the dots of financial-related events in the past (like the Occupy Wall Street and 2013 government shutdown) and finally came close to an answer of why we have this unresponsive government. 

I used to think United States as the great example of successful democracy, but now we no longer have this successful democracy anymore. We are living in a state where big corporations take over everything and the government that doesn't represent the citizens.

And that's how I became the most vocal supporter of campaign finance reform. Even though there are more things I want you to tell, but I think that's enough for today. I may not be a US citizen (I am from South Korea), but I will fight for this country and their values no matter what.

(.....)

p.s. Here is one thing I want to say to the Chief Justice Roberts' Supreme Court, the mega-donors and the establishment: JUST WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE ARE​!!!!!!

She asked me if I could write a brief testimony on why Stamping is important for me or if I've had any interesting conversations/encounters related to the Stampede.

I haven't send her a response to that question yet, but I will say this:

Whenever I have a dollar bill, I always stamp on it and spend it at convenient store or coffee shop, so more people within Columbia can get my dollar bills as changes. Also, whenever I encountered a homeless person on the street, I gave him some stamped dollars to buy more stuffs at small store nearby. 

That's only way to get the message across: we use banknotes, or money, this property that kept the broken system of the society running, to spread the awareness of that broken system within the public and encourage citizens to fix the system. Tell them to join the Stampede or Wolf-PAC for that matters. These crony capitalists are buying our representatives every elections and come to screw your life. Do something, for Christ's sake!

I still haven't met anyone who is part of the Stampede, but I know there are few people living in my area who has the Stamp Stampede stamp. How do I know? The front page of the website has this map that shows how many people purchased and where the purchasers live (but not in much specific details). 

In fact, I want to meet these people. I want to talk with them about how we could make people come together, despite political barriers, and demand more for campaign finance reform.

For more than a year, I encourage people that I know of and talked with to sign Wolf-PAC's petition and join their causes. I handed out flyers to people who are either progressive or politically active and lobbied candidates to make them introduce a resolution to call for Article V Convention (only if they elected to the office). 

To me, I feel like Stamp Stampede could give the public an attention to the important issue that mass media rarely talk about. People uses bills to give a tip to employees and buy items from small store. It could reach to other people from far away and make them notice the issue. 

So that's my statement on this, and it went longer than I thought. 

I am thinking about buying another stamp that has stronger message. It needs more impact to make people care about the issue, rather than just telling them to join Wolf-PAC. 

Stamp Stampede Asked Me to Blog for Them

Edit: I forgot. For those of you who are reading this - come buy their stamps and help them get money out of politic.

Good News.

After I wrote the letter to the editor post, I got a retweet and a reply from Stamp Stampede's official twitter account and they asked me if I could (write) blog for them.

In a response, I gave them my personal Carlton Banks Face of Approval.

Right now, I am quite ecstatic over this. I feel like I just got a new job or something. 

I mean, I am just a Ben & Jerry's ice-cream eating, idealistic college-student activist who wants to be part of the change, and now they asked me if I could write for them.

To be honest - even though this new opportunity overwhelms me - I am still thinking about it whether I should accept this or not. I am a college freshman now and the new semester will start next week. Not only that, I am gonna be very busy like hell.

Depending on time and schedule, I could write a blog for them. I will just message them and say, "I'm in and tell me what to do."

Seriously though. I have no words what to say about this. I couldn't explain more how amazed I am.

And I am expecting this blog will take a different direction in the future. 

We'll see.

A Letter to The Editor of Columbia Press

I am writing this blog while eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

Ben & Jerry's happens to be my personal favorite ice cream brand. In fact, it just became my ultimate favorite ice cream brand of all time.

Not only I like their creativity with flavors and their progressive business model, but they are also very outspoken on the issue of money in politic. Ben Cohen, the 'Ben' of Ben & Jerry's, even started the Stamp Stampede campaign which you can legally stamp on a dollar bill to spread the #GetMoneyOut message to wider people. In fact, whenever I have dollar bills, I just stamp them right away. (You should better buy their stamps and join their causes right now!)

My personal StampStampede stamp

When I went to their site, I saw the Take Action! section and there is a link that says "Write a letter to the Editor of your local paper". It directly takes you to FreeSpeechForPeople.org and you could find a local paper around your zip area and write a letter to their editor. 

I thought, "This might sounds cool. I will do it right away!"

So I sent a message to two local papers, Columbia Daily Tribune and Columbia Missourian, and this is what I wrote:

Dear editor,

The U.S. Supreme Court has a chance now to fix the enormous mistake it made in the Citizens United decision.  A Montana case challenging that Supreme Court decision has just been appealed back to the Court (American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock).

Citizens United vs. FEC decision just turned five this month, and it continues to damage the democratic system of our government. This Supreme Court ruling gave corporations a personhood, which means they have a constitutional "free speech" right to spend unlimited amount of money influencing our elections.

The corporate interest groups are using these moneys to create more TV ads and give political candidates a bigger chance to win a higher seat. Now I’m appalled by how our airwaves are already being filled with vicious campaign ads, and it’s only February! Just imagine how much worse things will get as the year goes on.

Every major Presidential candidate now has a Citizens United -enabled super PAC that allows corporations and the ultra-rich to spend limitless sums, anonymously, to buy our elections. 94% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money. That’s not an election, that’s an auction.

Corporate personhood - and campaign contribution as "free speech" - is the biggest threat to democracy, and now it ended out country's democracy by making politicians to rely on a legalized bribery from corporations.

This has to be stopped. Even 80% of Americans, want Citizens United overturned [http://j.mp/PHart]. As President Abraham Lincoln has said in his famous Gettysburg address that the government "of the people, by the people, [and] for the people". Free speech is for people, not corporations.

It is time we undo the damage by Citizens United. The Supreme Court has just been handed an opportunity to fix this mess. It should take it.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer just issued an extraordinary statement, calling on their fellow Justices "to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway." [http://j.mp/GBstmt]

Even Justice Scalia recently said, "If the system seems crazy to you, don't blame it on the court.” [http://usat.ly/zQbXPU] Well, I do blame it on the Supreme Court. Its decision in the Citizens United case two years ago is destroying our democracy.

It might take large time and energy to fix the system, but it definitely worth it by the end. We must restore our democracy, and bring back the republic for our people.

Sincerely,
Jay Whang - college student

(off-topic rambling) What can I say about #CharlieHebdo attack?

The whole purpose for forming this blog was to spreading awareness of legalized cronyism in politic and advocating people to demand campaign finance reform. I intended this blog solely focusing on an issue that any Americans, including conservatives, liberals, libertarians, religious, non-religious ect., can agree on and need to work together to fight against it. 

However, this morning, I heard about the assault at Charlie Hebdo office in Paris, the French satirical magazine publisher (think The Onion meets Mad magazine but much more provocative). Everyone inside the building were killed, including cartoonists, the artists, and the editor. I thought I need write my thought out to those who were affected by this attack, to those who are in debate over religious violence, and to those who dedicate their lives to defend freedom of press.

Charlie Hebdo was well-known for one thing: publishing a caricature cartoon of Islamic prophet Mohammed back in 2011. Of course, many fundamentalist Muslims were offended by this drawing, giving death threats to the artist and the editor alike. But the artist and the editors of the magazine decided not to back down, and pushed many buttons as they can by publishing more caricature drawings of every religious icons. 

This started the debate whether we should draw sacrilegious imagery in the name of freedom of speech, or we should just shut up and not to add any more fuel to the fire. 

I debated myself over this, whether we are allow to draw Prophet Mohammed or not. The question is: for what intent? 

First of all, I believe I have a right to draw Prophet Mohammed in a harmless smiley face (even though I never drew a smiley face with the title Mohammed in my life). I don't subscribe to Islam, so this dogma never applies to me at all. 

Actually, there was one time I had this brief debate between a Muslim friend of mine, and, not surprisingly, he was against anyone drawing his prophet. I remember commenting that one of the reasons why some Muslims were angry over this because some people portray the prophet in a very racist intention. Like, they just draw this picture for the sake of being an asshole.

While this notion of religions must deserve its criticism may be debatable, but, from my perspective, people have struggle to spread the message of "your religion is flawed" to much more wider audiences in this globalized world, due to its occasional racist root. 

Why not many people accept legitimate criticism of Catholicism of today? Because of the most outspoken Anti-Catholics in the past were anti-Irish bigots. Why people calls you anti-Semite when you criticize Israeli government? Because many vocal critics of Israel the supporters have ever met or heard are straight-forward anti-Semitic conspiracy nuts.  Why people calls you racist when you make legitimate criticism of Islam? Because the most of outspoken critics of Islam are right-wing commentators, politicians, and pundits who are anti-immigrants and support policies that marginalize people "who looks like Muslim." 

(And I am SPECIFICALLY saying RIGHT-WINGERS who has biggest voice in media like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Louie Gohmert, and even European like Geert Wilder. Although left-wingers like Bill Maher and Sam Harris has their own large following, but the latter supported racial-profiling policy while the former, well, should have spoke out against anyone who makes ILLEGITIMATE criticism of Islam. If Maher sympathize with the right when it comes to Islam, then why not he encourage them to use facts and evidences over propaganda?) 

Some people join in the causes not because they want to spread the message in meaningful way, but to cause more trouble. You get my point.

Sure religion is not a race, but many critics of religion should realize that some people criticize religions just for bigoted purpose rather than intellectual way. They shouldn't see them as an ultimate ally, but mere distractors. 

Also, I have to admit, I am quite skeptical on this view that religions influence violent behavior. There are no psychological or scientific studies that proves this notion, yet. So far, there is one research study that shows both religious and non-religious people are equally moral. Whether that research is flawed or biased or not, it still proves that we are human being and we want to live in righteous way.

Regarding human morality and violence, this is a very deep topic. Human psychology is so vast and complex it is better not to make any generalization. 

However, there is one thing I want to say to people who have no mental diagnosis but wants to kill (or already killed) other people in the name of religion (like these shooters): Don't you feel any remorse after this? Do you know if you killed harmless figures in the name of religion only cause more damage to the people of your religion rather than protection?

Thanks to Freedom of Speech, I can write what's going on in Washington and how the system we have now negatively affect the society.

Thanks to Freedom of Speech, I can write my personal statement on the current event of the world and to people who demand peace and to people who attacked Freedom of Press. 

Thanks to Freedom of Speech, everyone, including many Muslims and artists around the world, are able to condemn this devastating attack and support the artists who want their voice to be heard.

On Twitter, people use hashtag #CharlieHebdo or #JeSuisCharlie to support Charlie Hebdo and refuse to be silenced by the massacre. At the same time, people continue to blame Islam itself for the tragedy. If Muslims are to blame for the attack (I should have mentioned France's conflicts between Muslims since Algerian war, but that's another story), then should we blame white people for NAACP bombing in Colorado that happened at the same day? 

I admire supporters of Charlie Hebdo for their bravery, and  I also admire the late artists and editors for same reason. 

Satire exist in free society, to lift us up from the harsh nature of reality. One of us should tell a truth through laughter and help us not to surrender the absurd aspect of our lives. 

I went too deep here. But this entire post is deep in non-nonsensical way.

This reminds me of The Interview controversy from last month. When I heard Sony pulled the film from theaters, I thought we surrender ourselves from the egomaniac dictator. However, thanks to the internet, we could watch the film online and stand up for the right to make fun of Kim Jong-un. 

That's my thought. I might have made some fallible statement on Islam or any religion in general, but the point is, I don't approve any kind of bigotry in this harmonious diverse world, whether religious or not. 

It's so strange that I made from reporting of the attack to my perspective on the debate to a tribute to people who defend the freedom of speech. 

From now on, I am not going to post this kind of rambling again.

P.S. My thoughts and prayers goes to the victims of massacre and people of Paris.